This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I can agree that the influence of corporations (and campaign finance in general) on politics can be negative, particularly when donors are competing for lucrative government contracts.
Sure he might be motivated but at least he believes the same foolish stuff you do regarding how corporations corrupt congressman. Hey an alliteration! I rule.
I’m curious when you hear this guy speak do you see how hopelessly naive his view is or do you actually believe it has merit?
That reminds me of a quote. To paraphrase: “Fascism is the resolute opposite of the doctrine of Marxism”. Granted, it was said in a somewhat different context, but it’s rather interesting that you are so vitriolic in your opposition to giving the state control over the means of production, but ridicule those who voice opposition to giving control of the state to the means of production. The end result is the same: a consolidation of the state and the means of production into the same hands.
I know from a definitional perspective the quote holds but any actual fascism is a de facto control economy. This is because in a fascism the relationship between the business and government becomes so incestuous that the two no longer serve as independent entities. The state’s will is the business’s will.
I strongly oppose attempts by those that control the means of production to control the state. My point is that such a view is normally hopelessly naive as is the case with the gentleman in this YouTube video. The relationship between rich company, lobbyists, and congressman is never as strong as portrayed by those on the left. Furthermore there is a refusal on the left to acknowledge that much of their legislation make this kind of corruption much more possible. Providing the state with more resources enables them more opportunities to be corrupt with those resources.
“I know from a definitional perspective the quote holds but any actual fascism is a de facto control economy. This is because in a fascism the relationship between the business and government becomes so incestuous that the two no longer serve as independent entities. The state’s will is the business’s will.”
Nice job, you just repeated what I said in different terms.
“The relationship between rich company, lobbyists, and congressman is never as strong as portrayed by those on the left.”
Yet you acknowledge it exists? If there is at least the potential for abuse, does it not behoove the concerned citizen to help ensure that potential is not realized, assuming that he believes (as both of us apparently do) that if the means of production begin to exercise power over the state the results could be disastrous?
The concerned citizen in this case is someone advocating the elimination of the legal concept of corporate person hood. Something that has been in law books for at least 150 years if not longer. Hell he is not even talking about the example I acknowledge probably happens.
Giving corporations the legal distinction of person hood has done well for this country and anywhere else it has been allowed. It played a role in the generation of more wealth since its came into existence then the rest of the time man has been on the earth. This guys is a fucking wanker and is completely ignorant of economics. But this only to say that he is a liberal.
So you take exception not to the issue he raises but the means he proposes for dealing with it? I am however curious to hear your alternative suggestions regarding a means to safeguard against corporate influence on politics, aside from redirecting state expenses away from domestic programs and towards military.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:58 am
I can agree that the influence of corporations (and campaign finance in general) on politics can be negative, particularly when donors are competing for lucrative government contracts.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Dude, this guy is actually outspoken and bothers to make videos.
What do I look like, a guy who’s not lazy?
October 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Sure he might be motivated but at least he believes the same foolish stuff you do regarding how corporations corrupt congressman. Hey an alliteration! I rule.
I’m curious when you hear this guy speak do you see how hopelessly naive his view is or do you actually believe it has merit?
October 28th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
That reminds me of a quote. To paraphrase: “Fascism is the resolute opposite of the doctrine of Marxism”. Granted, it was said in a somewhat different context, but it’s rather interesting that you are so vitriolic in your opposition to giving the state control over the means of production, but ridicule those who voice opposition to giving control of the state to the means of production. The end result is the same: a consolidation of the state and the means of production into the same hands.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I know from a definitional perspective the quote holds but any actual fascism is a de facto control economy. This is because in a fascism the relationship between the business and government becomes so incestuous that the two no longer serve as independent entities. The state’s will is the business’s will.
I strongly oppose attempts by those that control the means of production to control the state. My point is that such a view is normally hopelessly naive as is the case with the gentleman in this YouTube video. The relationship between rich company, lobbyists, and congressman is never as strong as portrayed by those on the left. Furthermore there is a refusal on the left to acknowledge that much of their legislation make this kind of corruption much more possible. Providing the state with more resources enables them more opportunities to be corrupt with those resources.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
“I know from a definitional perspective the quote holds but any actual fascism is a de facto control economy. This is because in a fascism the relationship between the business and government becomes so incestuous that the two no longer serve as independent entities. The state’s will is the business’s will.”
Nice job, you just repeated what I said in different terms.
“The relationship between rich company, lobbyists, and congressman is never as strong as portrayed by those on the left.”
Yet you acknowledge it exists? If there is at least the potential for abuse, does it not behoove the concerned citizen to help ensure that potential is not realized, assuming that he believes (as both of us apparently do) that if the means of production begin to exercise power over the state the results could be disastrous?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Of course it exists. Don’t be retarded.
The concerned citizen in this case is someone advocating the elimination of the legal concept of corporate person hood. Something that has been in law books for at least 150 years if not longer. Hell he is not even talking about the example I acknowledge probably happens.
Giving corporations the legal distinction of person hood has done well for this country and anywhere else it has been allowed. It played a role in the generation of more wealth since its came into existence then the rest of the time man has been on the earth. This guys is a fucking wanker and is completely ignorant of economics. But this only to say that he is a liberal.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:23 am
So you take exception not to the issue he raises but the means he proposes for dealing with it? I am however curious to hear your alternative suggestions regarding a means to safeguard against corporate influence on politics, aside from redirecting state expenses away from domestic programs and towards military.